Contents

Talk:One Standard German Axiom

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 1 November 2023 by reviewer Tutwakhamoe (talk · contribs). Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Languages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bogus

[edit]

I don't find evidence for “One Standard German Axiom” as a linguistic controversy. No serious linguist questions German as a pluricentric language, at least since “Binnendeutsch oder plurizentrische Sprachkultur?” by Polenz (1988). The criticism which Dollinger has met by colleagues is about scientific rigor. As a topic in Wikipedia this debate belongs to Dollinger's biography, but not here.

Several footnotes in this article are bogus. The linked sources exist, but they don't support the statement they are added to. Other statements are (miss)leading towards a controversy which exists in non-scientific media, at best. These insertions are clearly not due to sloppyness, but manipulative. It also seems that @StefDoll, or proxies, try to place his own work on the alleged The Pluricentricity Debate by penetrant editing of thematic articles and linking here.

Thus, this article has conceptual and ethical issues. Personally, I would suggest removing it completely. Could someone independent please look into this. In the meanwhile, I continue scrutinizing the details mentioned in the article and their sources. --Rießler (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a personal opinion and Dollinger is a professional linguist and not a layperson postulating an opinion. If material is properly sourced it should be retained. If there are other sources disputing Dollinger then add them rather than removing Dollinger. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion! The problem is that the material is not (!) properly sourced. The other problem is that Dollinger created this article himself. The third problem is that most parts of the original article (I've fixed most of it already) wheren't about the topic, but about Dollinger. The fourth problem may be the very existence of this article because the "One Standard German Axiom" isn't taken serious by nobody in the field. --Rießler (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following statement, which looks properly sourced.

while De Cillia & Ransmayr consider the "pluri-areal" as a "linguistic counter position [to pluricentricity], although the term has not (yet) seen [since the 1990s] theoretical specification, respectively no systematic inventory of terms that is comparable with pluricentric approaches".<ref>{{Cite book |last1=De Cillia |first1=Rudolf |title=Österreichisches Deutsch macht Schule |last2=Ransmayr |first2=Jutta |publisher=Böhlau |year=2019 |location=Wien |pages=33 |language=DE |quote=sprachenpolitische Gegenposition formuliert, wobei bisher (noch) keine weitergehende theoretische Ausarbeitung bzw. kein systematisches Begriffsinventar ähnlich dem des plurizentrischen Ansatzes zur Analyse vorliegt.}}</ref>

It was not (!) properly sourced because here De Cillia & Ransmayr portray the earlier research, where pluriareality was sometimes considered (i.e. by others) a counter position to pluricentricity. Only one section above in their text, De Cillia & Ransmayr write:

Das für eine ­solche kleinräumigere Gliederung des deutschen Sprachraums in der Regel verwendete Modell ist das der Pluriarealität, das kein Gegenmodell zur Plurizentrik darstellen muss, sondern als komplementär angesehen werden kann.

Translated: “… pluriareality is not automatically a counter position to pluricentricity, but complementary to it.” Rießler (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the linguist Peter Wiesinger wrote a guest commentary in the same newspaper and argued that language nationalismen doesn't evolve from scientific theory" - excuse my ignorance but is "nationalismen" simply German for "nationalism" or does it have a more nuanced meaning? If the former, can the word "nationalism" be used here? If the latter, can there be a short explanation added to the sentence explaining the term to non-linguists and/or non-German speakers? Wellington Bay (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I fixed the typo. --Rießler (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no controversy about Dollinger's “Axiom”. Dollinger's idea is part of a debate about pluriareality and whether it can be used for refining the established concept of pluricentricity.

Thus, the debate is about “pluricentricity” but not about any “One Standard German Axiom”, which Dollinger placed here himself with the help of WP:Sockpuppetry. Therefore, I question the present article and suggest WP:DELPRO. --Rießler (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]